Quote of the day—ciggy

Great, so now all of the insecure, paranoid folk with inferiority complexes can live out their fantasies of carrying a lethal weapon around for no particular reason, endangering the rest of the population.

ciggy
December 30, 2010
Comment to Gun law changes coming.
This is in regard to Iowa becoming a “Shall Issue” state on Monday.
[This may come as a surprise to “ciggy” but n***ers are allowed eat at the same restaurants and use the same water fountains as white folk too. It turns out that doesn’t “endanger the rest of the population” either.

Ignorance and bigotry is not a valid excuse to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—Joe]

19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—ciggy

  1. Yet cigarette smoking is being outlawed in more and more places outdoors these days because it is a danger to others.

  2. The issue is that you really cannot control where cigarette smoke goes.

    Bullets on the other hand, you can. As long as you have proper training and done force-on-force scenarios.

    You must admit though, you can’t save everyone, no matter how hard you try.

  3. No, it isn’t.

    A bunch of puritans put a great deal of time, effort, and money into monkeying with the statistics to translate “slightly increased risk of health problems that a lot of people are going to get anyway” into “We’re all gonna die!”

    Freedom, b**ches!

  4. Great, so now all of us condescending, narcissistic folk with superiority complexes can’t live out our fantasies of violating enumerated rights for no particular reason, disarming the rest of the population.

    Fixed that to depict ciggy’s attitude more accurately.

  5. Though it has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of the post (which is becoming characteristic of ubu’s comments), ubu is way behind the curve. There was a W.H.O. study that determined there was no “second hand smoke” danger. It was in the statistical noise, but if anything it showed second hand smoke as beneficial. The initial claims of danger were reported widely and with the usual relish, but the results of the WHO study went largely unreported except for the wild-eyed extremists in the right wing media who brought our attention to it. Anyone who cares to look can find the facts about this scandal. Since ubu apparently hasn’t looked, we can assume she doesn’t care about facts.

    The main points of course, regarding her comment, are that she has wasted a couple minutes of my time trying to educate her, and that we’re talking about her instead of further lambasting the blatant, towering stupidity of ciggy’s comment. Ignore and redirect. You know you’re onto something when the left pulls that old, boring tactic out of the worn-out, Progressive play-book, and at that point it’s time to double down on them.

  6. Lyle,

    And you believe a WHO study why? WHO is the group that keeps pushing for worldwide gun bans, regardless of the fact that Joe’s Question has yet to be answered. WHO is a political organization whose findings are always what the current group in power wants, not what the actual medical outcomes are.

    There are plenty of reasonable, secondary medical studies, not influenced by politicians, (as EVERY WHO study is!), that show there is a deleterious health effect to second hand cigarette smoke. On top of that, every reasonable person understands intuitively that there is risk to second hand smoke.

    As a medical provider, I encourage my patients to quit smoking, but doing something that damages their own body is a right, although it may not be specifically enumerated. I have no problem with alcohol use, marijuana use, etc. Unfortunately, they affect others as well, and sometimes the laws of unintended consequences takes hold!

    BUT, second hand smoke is, at the very least, annoying. It can make people sick, (cigarette smoke induces nausea in me, though some cigars and pipe smokes are very pleasant to me), and it does have long term effects, particularly on children. (Ear infection rates, for one, are higher in children of smokers.)

  7. Bill,

    Don’t enter enclosed spaces where other people are smoking, then. Problem solved!

    Also, I second Lyle on the off-topic bit (I fell for it too).

  8. Forgot to add this, the “my roof, my rules” principle is highly applicable to the smoking thing.

  9. I smoke, so smoking laws bother me. I recently read on a gun forum that (yet another) California city was trying to pass a cigarette control law that outlawed smoking in your own apartment.

    The city that I live in passed a major strict cigarette smoking law that doesn’t allow smoking within 30 feet of most buildings, smoking in parking lots, parks, etc. They then passed a law outlawing smoking on patios and outside areas of Condos and apartments. They have very strict smoking laws called “A breath of fresh air.”

    I can’t imagine buying a condo then being told that I can’t smoke inside of it or outside of it (on the patio) but this is where the laws are heading.

    Does this relate to guns? Well, if I can’t smoke because it endangers everyone in the park if I chose to smoke in a park, what does a gun do?

    Yeah, smoking isn’t an enumerated right but neither is breathing.

  10. Publius,

    I don’t, if smoking is allowed in the enclosed space. I long ago gave up bowling for that very reason.

    But why should violating my airspace be allowed? If it was cyanide gas in immediately dangerous concentrations it would be against the law, why should it be allowed simply because the effects take years to manifest themselves? I hate the government having to make more laws, but smokers don’t seem to get the fact that they are violating others rights by smoking when nonsmokers are present.

    Why should I have to remove myself…why shouldn’t THEY remove themselves, they are the ones causing the problem.

    I have no problem with those who wish to abuse their own bodies, but subjecting others is wrong.

    My college daughter lives above an apartment where 4 roommates all smoke; her apartment, and the one above it, all reek from the smoke of those on the first floor. How can that be right?

  11. Again, “my roof, my rules”–if the owner allows it, it’s allowed. If the owner doesn’t allow it, it isn’t. It’s not “your airspace” except where you own the property.

  12. Publius,

    “my roof, my rules” applies fine to privately owned space, and goes without saying for anyone of any reasonable mind.

    It does not apply to the outdoors or public space, which are owned by all.

    I’ll admit we’ve drifted from the original quote, but smokers infringe on the rights of others a significant amount of the time in public space, and for too long we have simply said, “well, he’s outdoors, so that’s ok”.

    When someone infringes on the rights of others without regard for those rights, showing no concern for the feelings of others, is when government too often becomes involved. If smokers simply policed themselves, no one would have to ask government to do so.

    I do not use my firearms where it would even POSSIBLY infringe on the rights of others, why should smokers be allowed to do so simply because the effects occur far in the future?

  13. There’s no “right” to fresh air. Also, if they’re outside, what the heck else are they supposed to do? Also, if it’s public space, it’s their space, too–so if they are infringing on your “rights” then you’re infringing on their “rights” if you make them go away. Also, the evidence for danger from indoor secondhand smoke is at best weak; for outdoors, it’s nonexistent.

  14. Publius,

    There is a right to not have others infringe on you. Smokers infringe on others. They inflict their decisions on others. Your unfounded belief that outside smoke is somehow different from inside smoke is unscientific. Smoke is smoke, period. Cigarette smoke contains multiple carcinogens, and ANY quantity might be dangerous, from a medical viewpoint, no one actually KNOWS when the threshold is crossed. I love how people try to say the evidence for secondhand smoke is weak, its the same argument the tobacco companies used about primary inhalation! Go look at the data and “facts” they used for decades.

    And I’m not making them go away, I’m asking them to have the common decency to not impose their cigarette smoke on me. It comes down to a simple test….If you blow out cigarette smoke in my presence, am I then allowed to blow capsaicin at you? Cigarette smoke creates much the same effect on me that capsaicin does…if you are willing to tolerate the capsaicin, I’ll tolerate the cigarettes!

    If you can do something offensive to me, am I not allowed to also do something offensive in reverse?

    What is the difference?

    And please don’t try to say that capsaicin is obviously much more offensive, I have patients who have had anyphylactic reactions to cigarette smoke, that’s a life threatening reaction, doesn’t get much more offensive. Sure, its a matter of degree, but when is that border crossed? Simply because smoking has traditionally been ok doesn’t make it right. Being a rascist was once traditionally ok!

  15. Some people demonstrate anaphylaxis upon exposure to pollen. Quick, cover up all the pine trees with plastic! Also, it must be noted that it’s still ok to be racist. It’s just not ok anymore to make the n*ggers go where you can’t see/smell them because you don’t like it that they are around. Smokers, gun nuts, n*ggers, same story.

  16. As someone who may get migraines from tobacco smoke, and from perfume as well: I have to agree with Publius’s sentiments. There are too many things around us that can harm us; we can’t just ban them all. Property owners, in particular, ought to be free to choose for themselves whether they would allow smoking on their premises, or not.

    I feel this way, even after visiting Indiana, where I discovered that it’s legal to smoke in convenience stores. I like the fact that in both Utah and New York (I’m from Utah, and was living in New York at the time), the laws keep such places clear from smoke–but I’m still annoyed that New York requires bars and restaurants to be smoke-free, because I could chose not to go to a bar, or to a restaurant. If given the choice, I’d rather see smoky public places, and property rights intact, than I would the other way around.

  17. Thanks Alpheus. And as a smoker, I’d put it out for someone with a medical issue if they asked nicely.

Comments are closed.